State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S. Narne Estates (P) Ltd vs Col. Narne Ranga Rao on 11 July, 2012
A
A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA.1137/2009 against C.D.No.552/2008 on
the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s. Narne Estates (P)
Ltd.,
Regd. Office at No.1, Gunrock Elclave,
Karkhana, Secunderabad 500 009.
Rep. by Chairman
and Managing Director
Col. N. Ranga Rao.
2. Col.
Narne Ranga Rao,
Chairman and Managing Director,
M/s. Narne Estates (P) Ltd.,
Office at No.1 Gunrock
Enclave,
Karkhana, Secunderabad 500 009 Appellant/opposite parties
And
Ramchander
Soni, S/o. Late Amritlal Soni, aged about 68 years,
Occ: Retd Indian Air force, R/o. H.No.4-1-195, Hanuman Tekdi,
Hyderabad.
Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.R.Koteswara
Rao
Counsel for the Respondent
: M/s. Rakesh Sanghi
Coram : Sri
R.Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble
Member
And Sri T.Ashok Kumar Honble Member Wednesday, the Eleventh Day of July, Two thousand Twelve Oral Order : (As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar, Honble Member) * * *
1.This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties as against the orders dated 18.12.2008 in CC 552/2008 on the filed of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under :
The complainant was allotted a plot No. 50 in Sector V Block ZJ admeasuring 250 sq.yards on 7.4.1995. The costs of the plot i.e, Rs.37,500/- is agreed to be paid in installments and the development charges after intimation. Even though the complainant paid the entire cost of the plot in the month of August, 1999 and the development charges on 27.08.1999, the Ops without executing the sale deed procrastinating the matter on the ground that he has to pay the additional development charges. The Ops did not respond to the legal notice got issued by him which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the Ops to execute registered sale deed in his favour, to pay compensation and costs.
3. Ops filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegation made in the complaint and disputing the claim and the brief facts of the counter are as under.:
The complainant was allotted plot no.50 at Block ZJ admeasuring 250 sq.Yards in Sector V in East City, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District for Rs.33,750/-
on instalment basis @ 750/- per month commencing from May, 1995 and ends by December, 1998. In the month of March, 1999, the Ops requested all the allottees to pay the development charges of Rs.37,500/- @ Rs.150/- per sq.yard by way of monthly instalments @ Rs.1000/- but the complainant did not pay the same till August, 1999. The complainant addressed a letter dated 19.08.2000 requesting them to sell the said plot and hence they could not register the sale deed in his favor from August, 2002 and developmental activities did not take place.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both side the filed evidence affidavits, Ex. A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the Ops.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Ops to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of plot No. 50 at Sector V in block ZJ admeasuring 250 sq.yards in East City Township, Near Bhongir town, Nalgonda district, after receipt of registration charges and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation so also costs of Rs.2,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said orders, the opposite parties preferred the above appeal on several grounds and mainly contending that the complainant did not pay the developmental charges of Rs.48,500/- and that the complainant addressed a letter dt. 19.08.2002 to the Ops requesting them to put his plot for resale and hence they could not undertake developmental activities and that the reliefs sought for by the complainant does not fall under the provisions CP Act and therefore the District Forum has no jurisdiction of entertain contractual obligations and grant the relief in the nature of specific performance and that such powers and conferred on the competent civil court only and therefore the District Forum has become Quorum non judicis and that District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant failed to pay additional development and registration charges etc and therefore Ops are not bound to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant and that the complainant became defaulter in paying the amounts and that the complainant suppressed the real facts and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
7. Heard both side counsels with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is, whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable?
9. One of the important contentions raised by the Op is that the contents of the complaint disclose that the OP committed breach of contract and therefore the complainant ought to have approached a civil court for redressal i.e, specific performance of contract and the consumer Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint and thus attacked the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in entertaining the complaint. In several decision of the Honble Supreme court of India and Honble National Commission held that the development of land for the purpose of selling it as plots and house sites after duly adding value by way of providing infrastructure, obtaining lay outs and other permissions from the local government etc. constitutes by itself a king of service and in that view of the matter when a person purchases a plot from the developer he not only purchased the plot but also the service associated with its. In a recent decision of Supreme Court in Fakir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008 (4) CPR 449 (SC) fortifies this view. It was held that since the complainant purchased a plot from the OP/Developer he comes within the meaning of a consumer. Further, the Honble High Court of A.P. in Batch of writ petition nos. 28246 of 2009 etc., vide orders dated 13.08.2010 reported in 2011 (1) ALT 702 Division Bench between Narne Constructions Private Ltd Vs. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Distributions, New Delhi and others held that consumer Fora do not suffer lack of jurisdiction entertain complaints in such matters. The learned counsel for the OP filed copy of orders of Honble Supreme court of India in SLP Civil Nos. 3499 3517/11 filed against the orders dt 13.08.2010 in WP no.s 28246/2009 etc and as per the said orders operation of impugned judgment in the batch of said writ petitions was stayed . Later on, the said civil appeals nos 4432 4450 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) nos. 3499 3517 of 2011 were disposed of by the Honble Supreme Court of India vide orders dt 10.05.2012 confirming the order of the High court of A.P in the batch of said writs wherein it was held that consumer Fora do not suffer lack of jurisdiction to entertain complaint in such matters.
Therefore, the contention of the OP on the point for jurisdiction and also that the complainant is not a consumer does not hold any water and as such it is decided against the Ops.
10. There is not dispute that complaint made Ex/A1 application dated 7.4.1995 to Ops expressing his willingness to purchase a plot and that OP allotted membership no. 22, 752 so also plot No.50 in sector V, block ZJ admeasuring 250 sq.years and that the complainant paid total cost of the plot so also development charges and that apart Ex. A2 to A6 reveal the same.
E.A6 further discloses that he paid entire cost of Rs.33,750/- so also developments charges of Rs.37,500/- by 12.06.2002 and the balance payable was shown as zero against the columns of cost and development charges. The contention of OP is that it incurred additional developmental charges after receipt of development charges described in Ex. A6 and that in spite of demand the complaints did not pay the said amount and that earlier developmental charges fixed by OP was tentative. The complainant contends that he has no obligation to pay any additional developmental charges. The Development charges cannot be considered as cost of the plot. The Ops did not establish with any convincing material that they undertook such and such developmental activities at the site and that it incurred such and such expenditure and that on ratable distribution the complainant has to pay such and such developments charges. If at all the complainant is liable to pay any such additional developmental charges it is up to the Ops to file a civil suit and recover the same but on such pretext it cannot avoid execution of registered sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the said plot.
Therefore claim of the Op vide Ex.A9 letter dt. 10.05.2007 for additional development charges could not be appreciated in favour of the Ops for the purpose of this case. Therefore we did not find any force in the contention of the Ops to avoid execution of registered sale deed. The acts of the OP in claiming additional developmental charges and not registering the plot in favour of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OP contended that complainant addressed a letter dt 19.08.2002 to its requesting to put the allotted plot for resale. But the said document has not been filed into the Forum or before this Commission.
Mere mentioning of the said details in Ex. B5 reply is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the complainant made such a request. Therefore the objection of the complainant also holds no water. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
No order as to costs in the appeal.
Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED: 11.07.2012